|
Chapter XVIII
Crimes and Punishments.
| |||
|
Court and asserting laws which he could not Produce being thereunto required by the Court." was ordered to find security for his appearance at next court and to be of good behavior, "Butt upon refusal was Committed to ye Sherifes Custody." At the following court he was fined five pounds, which fine he petitioned might be remitted, and "the Court considering his Petition and that he putts himself upon ye King and Govern't milligates his former fine and admitts him to a fine of ten shillings to be levied upon his goods, &c., and all manner of Court charges to Sherife & Clerks, &c." Standing in the pillory for stealing or receiving stolen horses after the act of 1767 meant something more than merely being exposed to the gaze of the idle populace. John Bartiff, at Chester, Aug. 9, 1780, was found guilty of horse-stealing, and was sentenced by the court to receive "twenty-nine lashes on his bare back well laid on, to have both his ears cutt off and nailed to the pillory, to pay all costs of prosecution, to be imprisoned six months and to stand committed until this sentence be complied with." On Nov. 28, 1780, Christian Gotlibb, convicted of the like offense of an aggravated nature, was sentenced "to pay a fine of one thousand pounds, to restore the stolen property or the value thereof, to stand one hour in the Pillory to-morrow morning between the hours of eight and ten o'clock, to be whipped on his bare back with twenty-nine lashes well laid on, to have his ears cut off and nailed to the Pillory, to pay all costs of prosecution and to be imprisoned six months and to stand committed after till fine and fee is paid."
It is rather a peculiar circumstance in our county annals, then including Chester County, that after the passage of the act of Sept. 15, 1786, which specifically abolished the punishment of the pillory, whipping, branding, cutting off the ears of criminals and nailing them to the pillory for certain crimes, that on Nov. 27, 1788, John Tully, who was convicted of horse-stealing, was sentenced "to stand one hour in the pillory between the hours of nine and twelve o'clock to-morrow morning, to be whipped with thirty-nine lashes on his bare back, well laid on, to have both ears cut off and nailed to the pillory and to be imprisoned six months," besides the payment of a fine and the costs. From the time of the promulgation of the "Duke of York's Book of Laws," in 1676, until the Constitution of 1790 gave power to the judges of the several counties to hold Courts of Oyer and Terminer, all cases of great crimes were under the duke tried by the Court of Assizes, under Penn, by the Provincial Council, until the law of March 10, 1685, made it the duty of the judges of the Provincial Supreme Court to hear and determine "heinous and enormous crimes in the respective county courts where the said crimes were committed." Although this act was repealed in 1690, the same rule prevailed until changed by the second Constitution of the State. The first sitting of the Supreme Court in a criminal case in Chester which I find was on Oct. 3, 1705. The suit is an interesting one, hence I give the proceedings somewhat at large:
"Whereas James Gibbons, of the county of Chester, yeoman, being bound over to this court (county court held May 28, 1705) to answer such matters and things as on the Queen's behalf shall be laid to his charge by John Hoskins, High Sheriff of the said county, appeared, whereupon the Attorney-General gave the court to understand that the crime laid to the charge of the said Gibbons amounts to Burgulary, and for the court further satisfaction then he produeth the Sheriffs examination which being read as followeth:
"Chester the 30th day of April 1704 the deposition of John Hoskins, High Sheriff of the County of Chester, aged about twenty-seven years, being solemnly attested in the presence of God saith that last night about one o'clock James Gibbons, of the county, aforesaid, came with another person with him to this deponent unknown, and did break open the lock of his stable door and took out a sorril horse with a bald face which this deponent as Sheriff had taken on execution and when this deponent ran to him he with the other person with him made his escape thro' the lot and broke down the pails, whereupon this deponent seized on the horse with a halter on his head, which he supposes the said Gibbons brought with him, and also found a club in the stable, he presumes they brought with them and further saith not.
"The circumstances of the fact being considered it is ordered that the said James Gibbons shall be and is hereby by the Justices committed into the jail of this County of Chester there to remain till he shall be delivered by due course of law." The case being called at the Supreme Provincial Court, Oct. 3, 1705, "the Sheriff was ordered to set the prisoner at the bar, which being done the indictment was read." (The indictment had been found by the grand jury at the county court.) "David Lloyd moved that he may be admitted to speak of matters of Law unto the indictment before the prisoner plead, which is granted unto him, whereupon he desire it may be inspected by this Court whether or no the Justices session had power by their commission at that time of taking that indictment to enquire of that burgulary in the indictment mentioned." The court concluded to hold the matter under advisement until the afternoon session, when they decided that the justices had no jurisdiction, and on motion of David Lloyd the defendant was admitted to bail. Gibbons appears, from the silence of the record, never to have been called on further to answer the charge. The first trial for homicide in this county, so far as has been ascertained, was that of Hugh Pugh, a mill-wright, and Lazarus Thomas, laborer, who were indicted for the murder of Jonathan Hayes, a resident of Marple and a justice of the county, in the year 1715. At the October court of that year the following reference to the trial will be found: "This Court request Henry Worley, Robert Carter and James Sandelands to see if they can procure some place yt may be more Convenient than the Court house for holding the Supreme Court for ye Tryall of those persons yt are holden in ye Gaol of ye County on Suspition of murder and to make such agreement as they may see needful for change and damages to be payd out of the County stock." The records of the county at West Chester, from 1710 to 1720, are very meagre, and little or no information can be had by an inspection of the court paper of the circumstances surrounding the case. We know, from the minutes of the Provincial Council, that the accused "had for several years appeared at the head | |||